Posted on 07/12/2006 9:05:47 AM PDT by aceintx
The campaign arm of Senate Republicans has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against the Republican candidate that they don't want in Rhode Island. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is backing Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Rhode Island Republican who is being challenged by conservative Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston. The complaint focuses on a letter that Mr. Laffey sent to city property owners with their tax bills last month. In the letter, Mr. Laffey said he ran for mayor to put the city back on its feet and saved it from bankruptcy by creating a $20 million surplus. "I am happy to say that together, we have succeeded beyond our expectations!" the letter said. In a complaint filed with the FEC, the NRSC said the city should not have paid for a letter touting the mayor's accomplishments in an election year. The complaint named Mr. Laffey, his Senate campaign and the city of Cranston.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
You'd thin they'd have learned their lesson with the way Specter has been conducting himself lately. He's the only one that is still investigating the "Illegal Wire Tap" issue in the Senate. Even the Dummycrats gave up that issue after getting their tails burned on it
This is what your money goes for if you contribute to "party" activities. If you'd contributed to both the party and to Laffey, your money for the latter would be offset by the decisions of the former.
Why is Chafee worth all this effort, all those burned bridges? And who made these decisions?
Because a conservative Republican will lose in RI.
Anyone who donates to the RNC or the NRSC is an idiot. They are constantly doing this kind of thing.
It's to our advantage to have as many Republicans in office as we can get, but it's not to our advantage to have these organizations pushing RINOs down our throats. Donate to the Republicans of your choice.
I'll accept that some RINOs are necessary. But Lincoln Chaffee is not someone I can support in any circumstances. He is a traitor to his party, who has repeatedly been the swing vote that has defeated important Republican bills in the Senate. He must go, even if it means a Democrat will replace him. But I am not that convinced that Laffey would pull in less votes than Chaffee at this point. Let them compete!
When was the last time a conservative ran in RI, and how did he/she do?
You think the choice in what is one of the most liberal states in the nation is between a RINO and a Consevative.
The choices in liberal states are a between a liberal and a RINO.
You keep trying to elect the most liberal Democratic senator in the USA rather than the third most RINO senator in the USA.
The conservatives in PA screamed that Specter is a Rino and Santorum is Conservative.. The Conservatives were unable to defeat Specter but you have done a wonderful job on Santorum. You have labeled him a conservative and that is the death knell for Santorum.
Let them compete!
I agree...at least don't let the party bosses tip the board in an anti-republican direction!!!!
I know you are right, politically.
Rhetorically, unless the DIM candidate is to the left of Cindy Sheehan, what good is Chafee's seat?
Chafee has not helped the Senate R's other than keep a seat warm.
Anyone who donates to the RNC or the NRSC is an idiot.Right. Donate to the candidate(s), not to the party.
And the rest of us hayseeds in flyover country are sitting at our computers scratching our heads wondering why we can't get effective leadership in Washington.
Do these bobbleheads not realize that we read Internet news sites and blogs and know what they are up to? Do they still go to bed at night wondering why we have such a poor opinion of politicians?? Perhaps they read actually read the stories about themselves and they might get a clue!!!
Conservatives stand about as much chance winning in Rhode Island as a liberal RINO winning a Presidency. It can't happen. That's why candidates lie.
Santorum's low poll numbers have nothing to do with him being called a conservative and eveything to do with him backing Specter in the last election. If you bother to ask, people in PA will tell you just that.
Since Chafee regularly votes with the Dems anyway, what's the difference?
Disgusting. But no surprise.
But keeping a seat warm is something in and of itself.
Chafee is part of what's keeping President Bush from being impeached, namely the Senate majority. If the Democrats get control of the Senate, they will show their true, ugly colors.
Also, Chafee's lifetime ACU is 37-- that's way better than any Democrat that might possibly replace him. For comparison, Joe Lieberman's lifetime ACU is 17.
Narrow control of the senate?
aceintx wrote: "You'd thin (sic) they'd have learned their lesson with the way Specter has been conducting himself lately."
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) AGREES with Specter and Chafee. That's the real problem here. They don't agree with their own base, the rank and file Republicans.
Again, if we had a healthy majority in the senate, it wouldn't be a consideration. Which would you rather have--a RINO or another lib Democrat, when the difference could mean control of the senate?
To be honest I haven't lived there for ten years, and I couldn't say, but I'd be willing to bet there's never been a conservative Republican senator from RI.
There's a reasonable argument to be made that we're better off with a Democrat there than a Democrat in GOP clothing. It's not as if having control of the Senate - for many years now - has done anything for us. The Senate continues to be a bastion of corruption and socialist legislation... hell, I think we'd be better off if it were abolished entirely.
COuldn't disagree with you more.
I sometimes get the sense that people expected having control of the WH and Congress think we'd have a "good" dictatorship, where we can just sit back and call the shots. But even a Republican-controlled government is a government, not wish-fulfillment. There will never be a time when we can just check off a list of what we want and POW! there it is. The founders built checks and balances into the system so it moves slowly. We can't just sulk and say "Well pooh, I can't have everything I want so it sucks!"
I'd say much of the WOT-backing legislation, tax policy and Bush's SCOTUS picks alone make ity worthwhile. And I don't see any reasonable argument that we're better off with a Democrat there--how would Dems being in control be better for us?
And just why are some RINOs necessary?
The Senate has nothing to do with voting out a bill of impeachment.
This is party politics.
It is not about right and wrong it is about playing king of the hill. You stay on top until pushed off.
So. Chaffee has seniority in the R party and has used it to get some nice committee assignments. In there he reliably votes with the Dems making sure that frequently R positions don't make it out to the floor. We would be better off without him.
Better to have a party that can accomplish something in control, or failing that to be the minority party. To hold the majority in name only brings all the responsibility and blame and little authority to accomplish things.
One only need look at the dismal record of the Republican controlled Congress to verify that this is serious problem.
Name only?
Roberts, Alito, taxes, WOT...
Sorry, I don't buy this "it'd be better to be in the minority" utter insanity. I value my country too much to sulk over a (very) far from perfect R majority and hand the keys over to the Dems.
at most these yutzes should just let the primary happen THEN get involved with making the winner of said primary the winner in the General.
Last I checked, Santorum labeled himself a conservative.
And Santorum is in trouble for the following reasons:
1) He backed Specter.
2) He's in a Democrat state running against an opponent who's father was beloved.
3) Liberal Republicans don't like his social conservatism while conservative Dems DO but think the Democrat is a social conservative..like his father. Therefore, LIBERAL Republicans are throwing their own tantrum, not wishing to elect a social conservative while socially conservative Democrats think they'll get the best of both worlds. Liberal environmentally, economically and slight toning down of current foreign policy while a strong pro-life advocate.
But, nice to see you are still on the job promoting the advancement of Liberalism and marking conservatism as unbankable. It's been enlightening to discover who has alligned with the "new" Republican wing trying to assert control of the party. The so called "moderates" funded by George SOROS.
Roberts and Alito are real accomplishments. The tax cuts don't mean much to me. Without spending cuts it's just pushing the taxes into the future. Not a very conservative policy. Bush has made a joke of the Republican claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Republicans in the majority have acted just like fat cat Dems did for the 40 years previous. "Bridge to Nowhere" etc.
Bush deserves credit for no new 9/11s in the USA. Whether the same could have been achieved without turning Iraq into the mess it is today is worth speculating on.
All in all I think a little time in the woodshed would be OK for the Elephants.
I don't support him personally.
I support him as a number to keep people who are more conservative and running the show in the majority.
There is a big difference.
You folks keep sellin' this line, but I ain't buyin'.
Whatever one's arguments with the Republicans, the Dems will be ten times worse. And tax cuts may not mean much to YOU but they mean a lot to the rest of us, and the economy in general.
I never get an answer as to what, exactly, this "time in the woodshed" is going to do, exactly--how long it will last, HOW we are going to get the R's back in when "we" suddenly decide it's OK for them to come back...not to mention that the Dems will be impeaching Bush, rolling back the WOT and tax cuts, putting in liberal judges...
Once one goes beyond the kneejerk fun of "throwin' em out to bring 'em in line", there's what, exactly, that's going to be positive for us, as opposed to helpful to the Dems?
Politics 101. There are some states where no one but a RINO can be elected. And politics is the art of the possible.
The CLASSIC duty of a RINO is to appease his or her stupid constituents in any way necessary in order to get reelected. They can say what they like and vote as they like, but they must vote with the party when given orders to do so by the leadership.
The party can afford to have RINOs shooting off at the mouth and voting against the party on a hundred votes, as long as the vote isn't critical. If they have enough votes, or if the bill is unimportant, no big deal. No need to pass a bill by more than the necessary number of votes.
But there's one absolute no-no, and that is to defy the leadership when they get you into the back room and tell you that your vote is necessary.
We may not like Snowe and Collins very much, but they VOTE WITH THE PARTY those few times when their vote is needed. That self-conceited idiot Lincoln Chaffee has repeatedly betrayed the party on critical votes. Several highly important bills have gone down to defeat by one vote because he voted against them. That is simply intolerable. It is disloyalty of the basest kind.
On its face, that makes sense...but when you analyze it it doesn't add up. If that were true, wouldn't Specter be just as unpopular?
Rove is a smart operator, but he has some serious blind spots. They usually show up when he intervenes on behalf of the RINO candidate somewhere.
He does a lot to offend the religious conservative base. The fiasco in California is just one example. We could have had William Simon as governor, if Rove had backed him with some money. He came very close to beating Grey Davis.
Instead, Rove backed Parsky and a series of RINO losers, including Arnold. Having Arnold as governor of California has not helped the party a damned bit. He refused to campaign for Bush, and he has lost all of the momentum provided by Gray Davis's unpopular image. Now, if the sensible voters of California blame anyone for their growing problems, it will be Arnold and the Republicans.
Specter has a different constituency, more in the middle. Santorum has been voted in by conservatives and people like workers who admire his pro-life honesty. But he has badly tarnished that image and his reputation for uncompromising honesty. A lot of voters will vote for an incumbent whom they believe to be honest, even if they don't back everything he stands for, but they are turned off if they think he has compromised his principles.
There's no way that Santorum can attract the same voters as Specter. But before this happened, they both managed to get elected.
It is exceptionally hard work. It takes lots of money, time, ground work and prayer. We fight not only our opponents but the party in power, rampant voter fraud, and the press. The last thing we need is to spend half our time fighting off our own team as well.
Like the current Governor, Don Carcieri ?
Massachusetts has had four Republican governors in a row, so I guess we'll have no problem dislodging Kennedy and Kerry from the senate, right?
On it's face it may seem that way, but a lot of folks here feel they were betrayed by the powers that be. Specter won over the more conservative candidate because Santorum and President Bush convinced people who were going to vote for Toomey, that Toomey would never win against Hoeffel.
That is the reason you will hear most often here. Now we are saddled with one of the biggest Liberals in politics and people look at Santorum as the reason. Good or bad it's the main reason Santorum isn't polling anywhere near where he has in the past and could very well lose this election.
I can live with most of our moderates, but you've got to draw the line somewhere,
Lincoln Chafee is that line.
I support Santorum strongly, and hope everyone will vote for him. I don't blame him, I blame Bush and Rove for their stupidity for twisting his arm and pushing him to back Specter.
I was just explaining why he may not be re-elected. But I certainly hope he will be.
His psandering to the illegal aliens at the La Raza convention as one of their speakers should just about cook his goose.
I hadn't heard about that. Really stupid.
You assume most voters think like you do. If that was true Alan Keyes and Bill Simon would be Senators of IL and CA. Mark Neumann would have beat Fiengold in WI. Clearly the voters of moderate and liberal states reject extreme conservatism.
Think of the conservative heroes you admire and ask yourself why almost none of them advance to statewide office or higher?
Surely there must be men of honor and character besides yourself and yet none exist in the Senate and only a handful exist in the House. Could this be because voters reject them? I think so.
If conservatives are elected in moderate states they quickly moderate their stance or they are replaced. There are too many examples to list.
Until the voters support God, country and family traditions without uncertainty, mental reservation, or wavering of duty, I don't expect their representatives in congress will be much better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.